TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:46.035 says

(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;

TABC defines premises as the area listed on the license for consumption, so their 'premises' could be the whole fair. 46.035 says 'building or portion of building'. So, there is a major conflict on the 'premises' definition. Because there is no case law on this, you may beat the rap, but not the ride and cab fare in this one.

Best bet is if it's government owned, to try and report it to the AG and get an opinion from them.

The premises definition for TABC licensing purposes does not create a crime under which a LTC can be charged, so this is really the same situation as the State Fair. It comes down to "what are you going to do about it if they keep you out"?

Wouldn't the proper thing to do, especially if 51% signs are posted at the gates, be filing a complaint with TABC? I would but I'm not in the area so couldn't verify anything.

https://www.tabc.texas.gov/LicensedLocationComplaint/

jmorris wrote:Wouldn't the proper thing to do, especially if 51% signs are posted at the gates, be filing a complaint with TABC? I would but I'm not in the area so couldn't verify anything.

https://www.tabc.texas.gov/LicensedLocationComplaint/

Actually, the whole location may legitimately be under the TABC premise. If people can take their drinks out of the location and drink anywhere on the fair grounds, then the whole grounds will be defined under the 51% license. The problem would be if a TABC officer decides you are in violation of carrying on a 51% location, even though 46.035 defines premise as the building or portion of, then you may end up taking a ride until they realize that there is a discrepancy in the statutes vs. TABC rules on the definition of premises.

Keith B wrote:

jmorris wrote:Wouldn't the proper thing to do, especially if 51% signs are posted at the gates, be filing a complaint with TABC? I would but I'm not in the area so couldn't verify anything.

https://www.tabc.texas.gov/LicensedLocationComplaint/

Actually, the whole location may legitimately be under the TABC premise. If people can take their drinks out of the location and drink anywhere on the fair grounds, then the whole grounds will be defined under the 51% license. The problem would be if a TABC officer decides you are in violation of carrying on a 51% location, even though 46.035 defines premise as the building or portion of, then you may end up taking a ride until they realize that there is a discrepancy in the statutes vs. TABC rules on the definition of premises.

The entire premise cannot be 51% posted if the gross profits are not from alcohol sales. it is the same in a restaurant, they may serve alcohol anywhere in the restaurant, but if their gross revenues from the sale of alcohol are less than 51% it can't be a TABC posted 51% premises.

Keith B wrote:

jmorris wrote:Wouldn't the proper thing to do, especially if 51% signs are posted at the gates, be filing a complaint with TABC? I would but I'm not in the area so couldn't verify anything.

https://www.tabc.texas.gov/LicensedLocationComplaint/

Actually, the whole location may legitimately be under the TABC premise. If people can take their drinks out of the location and drink anywhere on the fair grounds, then the whole grounds will be defined under the 51% license. The problem would be if a TABC officer decides you are in violation of carrying on a 51% location, even though 46.035 defines premise as the building or portion of, then you may end up taking a ride until they realize that there is a discrepancy in the statutes vs. TABC rules on the definition of premises.

If that's the case then TABC would tell them they're legit. But one way or the other it would be resolved. Probably not for this year though.

Jusme wrote:
The entire premise cannot be 51% posted if the gross profits are not from alcohol sales. it is the same in a restaurant, they may serve alcohol anywhere in the restaurant, but if their gross revenues from the sale of alcohol are less than 51% it can't be a TABC posted 51% premises.

Actually, yes it can. The TABC does not require the entire amount of the proceeds from the venue, just the proceeds from the company that holds the liquor license. A good example of this is the Kimbel Art Museum and Bass Hall in Fort Worth. The concession company holds the liquor license for those locations makes more than 51% of their revenue from sale of alcohol. The patrons are allowed to drink in any part of the building, so the whole building is the 51% 'premise'.

EDIT TO ADD: Here is a link from our resident expert on a vendor or other license holder causing a whole location to be off-limits http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 1&p=903684

locke_n_load wrote:Or we remove the whole 51% law from Texas Code and public property can stop using this as an anti-gun shield.

There is the answer.

46.03 should be airports, courtrooms (not courthouses, or court offices) and jails / prisons... that's it.

[b]Keith B[/b] wrote:

Jusme wrote:
The entire premise cannot be 51% posted if the gross profits are not from alcohol sales. it is the same in a restaurant, they may serve alcohol anywhere in the restaurant, but if their gross revenues from the sale of alcohol are less than 51% it can't be a TABC posted 51% premises.

Actually, yes it can. The TABC does not require the entire amount of the proceeds from the venue, just the proceeds from the company that holds the liquor license. A good example of this is the Kimbel Art Museum and Bass Hall in Fort Worth. The concession company holds the liquor license for those locations makes more than 51% of their revenue from sale of alcohol. The patrons are allowed to drink in any part of the building, so the whole building is the 51% 'premise'.

EDIT TO ADD: Here is a link from our resident expert on a vendor or other license holder causing a whole location to be off-limits http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 1&p=903684

Email from Rhyan Henson, author of the article linked to in original post at http://www.12newsnow.com/story/31552552 ... state-fair:

The head of security says at least one vendor has a liquor license that covers the entire fair grounds. That vendor only sells liquor. That’s why no open/concealed carry is allowed inside of the grounds. The parking lot like you mentioned as an example as not being a part of the premises does not count like you said.

-Rhyan

Where are the apologists for the AG?

Why do you think it's an AG issue? It's not an invalidly posted 06/07, it's an invalidly posted 51%. It should go to TABC first.

OK.

Do you if the TABC is known for responsive, positive efforts towards removing bogus 51% signage?

Abraham wrote:OK.

Do you if the TABC is known for responsive, positive efforts towards removing bogus 51% signage?

They have been noted doing so on this forum in the past. And of course, if the signage is not "bogus," as it appears in this case, then the TABC will not remove it.

ELB wrote:

Abraham wrote:OK.

Do you if the TABC is known for responsive, positive efforts towards removing bogus 51% signage?

They have been noted doing so on this forum in the past. And of course, if the signage is not "bogus," as it appears in this case, then the TABC will not remove it.

Why is this any different than the Texas State Fair in Fair Park? There are many 51% vendors whose permits cover the whole of Fair Park, but the "grounds" are not part of the "premises" as defined in 46.02 or 46.035, so you can legally carry there with a LTC. They can post a 51% sign at the entrance to the park, but it does not "create" a crime that you can be charged with.

jmorris wrote:Why do you think it's an AG issue? It's not an invalidly posted 06/07, it's an invalidly posted 51%. It should go to TABC first.

If they are trying to prohibit LTC-holders from entering with a firearm where they are not prohibited from entering, it's an AG issue. The anti-30.06 law isn't just for 30.06 signs, it's for any sign or notice that communicates that license holders can't bring their legal guns into.

mr1337 wrote:

jmorris wrote:Why do you think it's an AG issue? It's not an invalidly posted 06/07, it's an invalidly posted 51%. It should go to TABC first.

If they are trying to prohibit LTC-holders from entering with a firearm where they are not prohibited from entering, it's an AG issue. The anti-30.06 law isn't just for 30.06 signs, it's for any sign or notice that communicates that license holders can't bring their legal guns into.

The 'premise' discrepancy needs to be corrected in TABC language, but getting them to change it themselves would be nearly impossible. This is the time to use the AG invalid signage rule to fix not only the 30.06/30.07, but the 51% signs on 'premises' so it is clear there is no violation unless the LTC enters a building (46.035 defined 'premise').